tugela

Explain to me how guys with guns at a training camp differs from other guys with guns at a training camp?

The high end FF DSLRs are just too big and clunky. And they don't need to be. Anyone from the golden days of film cameras will remember the consumer DSLRs from that era, which were about the size of modern day MILCs. I still have my old Minolta XG-1, which was tiny compared to modern FF DSLRs. It is smaller than my NX1. The presence of a mirror doesn't mean that the camera has to be huge, that is a purely cosmetic choice made by manufacturers, presumably so that they could mimic the old film pro-cameras (which were huge, due to the need to incorporate things like autowinders and the associated batteries).

Or just get a A7RIII or A9, and get the best of both worlds.

Seeing that they had DPAF in their cell phones a year later, my guess is that it was part of the agreement they made with Canon - "If you give us an exclusive license for your AF technology in our cell phones then we will stop competing with you in your business". Since cell phones are a lot more valuable to Samsung than their cameras were, such an arrangement would have made business sense to them.

You can only lose something if you had it in the first place.....

Canon are not "crippling" their cameras on purpose, the reason for the absence of those features is the limitations of the processors in the cameras.

As I have said many times, the codecs they can implement will be limited by the hardware encoder in the processor. That encoder has likely been designed and optimized for consumer grade video in DSLRs and compacts, so it is unlikely that anything more than some higher bit rates will be implemented. To do that they would have to replace the processor with the 2019 version, and 2019 has not arrived yet. You can't expect miracles or features to be implemented that are not supported by the hardware in a particular model. If you want to use a middle codec rather than RAW, then you will need to get one of the cameras that use the older processor, such as the C300M2.

Now France will have to adopt Trump as their comedic legend.

Don't think he did. For what the OP intended, shooting vertically is fine.

Probably because they have higher resolution to work from. You will always get better results with good native resolution rather than synthesized resolution. You can't enhance information that is not there to start with, so that will always be the limiting factor in terms of what you can do with the image.

The numbers he is citing are world wide, which means that it includes all of the TV sets in the developing world, which for the most part could be expected to be pretty basic. Most people world wide live in shacks, if you want to use the OPs argument you might ask why we need to build modern houses if that is so. By his apparent thinking there is no real demand so why do it. Obviously, we build modern houses in the first world because first world residents by and large don't live in shacks. This should be clear to anyone who gives this any sort of thought at all, so it always bemuses me why technical sophisticated people who frequent forums like this need to have it explained to them over and over again. People here are not shooting for that demographic, which he should be well aware. In the developed world most TVs offered for sale are 4K (as any trip to an electronics store will demonstrate) and that is why people want to shoot in 4K. You want to produce product for the consumption of people who have money to spend, and those people are buying into 4K. Who cares what sort of TV set the average resident of Burkino Faso (or where ever) has, it is completely irrelevant to first world shooters. That is not their market. As to why the OP would make such a post, best ask him that. I assume that he just does not want to shoot in 4K and is trying to rationalize it using statistics that are not relevant or are misleading.

Because we don't live in the third world.

Incorrect. All cameras that use a Beyer filter are going to have artifacts, especially if they are not oversampled. It is the nature of the beast. The process of debeyering is going to produce halos at high contrast edges no matter what you do because color information is inaccurate at that part of the image. The only way to correct for that is to use either a high level of oversampling or to blur out the resolution of those edges, which is what your "detailed" cameras are doing. Do not make the mistake of confusing color resolution with what you get with a grey scale target btw, which eliminates the errors introduced by color. That just tells you what your lens resolution is, not what the camera is resolving in a real image after processing. Shooting at anything other than 4:4:4 is going to introduce artifacts as well. The only way to approach true 4K in terms of resolution is to shoot a 6K or 8K image. Any camera that does not do this is not delivering a true 4K image. Detail in shadow areas has more to do with dynamic range than resolution. Whatever he provided is in german so who knows what they hell it says, or if they are even comparing what he thinks they are comparing.

It is not oversharpened. It has higher resolution than most other 4K cameras due to the oversampled sensor. People call it "oversharpened" because they are conditioned by cameras with poor resolution into thinking that is what it is supposed to look like, but actually those cameras just have poor resolution.

It is not oversharpened. It has higher resolution than most other 4K cameras due to the oversampled sensor. People call it "oversharpened" because they are conditioned by cameras with poor resolution into thinking that is what it is supposed to look like, but actually those cameras just have poor resolution.

The heat is from the processor, not the sensor.

Why is a FF sensor any different from a crop sensor in downsampling? It is just data, it has nothing to do with the sensor size. The limitation when it comes to handling data is the processor and it's thermal envelope. If the camera uses a processor with cutting edge design and lithography it will be capable of doing it (since we know that there are already image processors from Sony, Panasonic and Samsung that can do this).

That beast would be the next generation of Sony consumer cameras that will start rolling out towards the end of the year and early 2018. My expectation is that they will have capabilities that will be the beginning of the end of the DSLR in the consumer space. Going forward MILCs will outperform most if not all DSLRs. Nikon have a similar problem as Canon has, which is that silicon advancement is where the industry future is at, and that is squarely being driven by companies like Sony and Panasonic. The only way Nikon are going to survive (and to a lesser extent, Canon) is by teaming up with some outside but related company who does have the necessary capabilities in silicon (Samsung, for example, but there might be others as well). If they don't do this they are going to fall further and further behind every year.

I prefer to use the term "shithole", having grown up in such a place. That is the trouble with you first world types, you have no idea what the rest of the world is really like.

A projector is no match for a real screen when it comes to resolution, due to the limitations of the optics those typically have. I can tell the difference easily on a 64" TV at normal viewing range when watching HD productions compared to UHD productions. Of course they will look the same if the source material is shot at effective HD (or less, as is often the case) resolution, but with real UHD source footage you can see the difference quite easily.

No it is not. The reason that consumer Canon cameras don't have 4K is that their processors cannot do it in hardware without a cooling solution. Until that is resolved you are not going to see 4K in Canon consumer cameras. To do 4K they have to use software solutions such as MJPEG, which require massive amounts of data to be moved, and consequently is not realistic on consumer cameras, where the user is not going to want to buy very expensive cards to shoot. All this nonsense about people not really needing/wanting 4K is just marketing spin to explain away the absence of 4K when pretty much every other manufacturer is implementing it. It is not like Canon marketing is going to admit that the competition is simply better than them now is it? It is not a marketing/political decision. it I a TECHNICAL decision forced on them by the inadequacies of the processors available to them. We should be seeing a Digic 8 soon (foreshadowed by the Digic DV6 used in the C200) which may be thermally efficient enough to do basic 4K in hardware without a cooling solution. We probably won't see any serious cameras based on that processor before 2018 though, perhaps a 7DIII, which would be my guess. But even then, Sony/Panasonic (and likely Nikon as well) are still going to be ahead.

25% is from a few years back. Actually, mirrorless accounts for 36% of the market now, and that number is slowly growing. In a few years MILCs will cross the 50% line and soon after that DSLR sales will by and large crater. The end of the DSLR is rapidly approaching. A7IIR, A7SII and A9. Every Sony FF camera from now on will do it as well. D5 does as well IIRC. My guess is that most or all of future Nikons will as well. Not only that, just about every smaller new Sony and Panasonic does as well. 4K enabled has nothing to do with sensor size, so there is no reason why all cameras should not have the feature, unless the processor used in the camera is too primitive.

That is weird. I was not aware that Canada had joined the US then, since we have Best Buy stores here. Guess they just forgot to change the flag. I don't give a rats ass what sells in Burkina Faso (or whatever other third world shithole). What sells in the developed world is what I care about, and what the companies selling these products care about. 1080p sets sell like hotcakes in Burkina Faso no doubt, because that is all they can afford. Profit margins for manufacturers are minimal in places like that however - their profit comes from developed world markets.

Sony just manufacture some of them on contract. The sensors are Samsung's design, not bought off the shelf. Samsung make the same sensor themselves, but use Sony manufacturing to pick up the slack when building up stock for a new product release. It makes sense for them to do that because otherwise they would have production facilities sitting idle inbetween product releases.

Nothing "lower class" about Samsung's sensors.